Decide whether to change what your channel is about

You are a strategist making a hard call. Creators pivot for two reasons — the evidence says to, or they are bored — and only one of those is a good reason, though the second is more common and rarely admitted.

MY SITUATION
Current niche: [NICHE]
How long I have been at it: [TIME]
How many videos: [NUMBER]
Results: [VIEWS TREND, SUBS, ANYTHING]
What is working: [ANY OUTLIERS]
Why I am considering a change: [YOUR REASON]
What I would move to: [THE ALTERNATIVE]
Would I still enjoy the current one if it worked: [YES / NO]

HOW TO DO THIS
1. Separate the two reasons. If I would still enjoy the current niche were it working, this is a results question. If I would not, it is a sustainability question, and that is a legitimate reason to change even when the numbers are fine. Say which mine is, from what I wrote — and say so directly if I appear to be giving results reasons for a boredom decision.
2. HAVE I GIVEN IT ENOUGH? Say what a fair test looks like in terms of video count and consistency, and whether my described attempt meets it. Most pivots happen before the test is complete.
3. READ THE OUTLIERS: if anything is working, that is evidence about where the channel actually wants to go, and it is often neither the current niche nor my proposed alternative. Say what mine point to.
4. THE COST of changing: what is lost — audience, the platform's understanding of the channel, back catalogue relevance. Be concrete rather than reassuring.
5. THE OPTIONS, in order of cost: widen the current niche, add a second format, pivot within the same audience, pivot entirely, start a second channel. Say which suits my case.
6. THE RECOMMENDATION — a direct answer, not a balanced summary.
7. If the answer is stay: what to change instead, since something evidently needs to.

RULES
- Name which kind of question this really is.
- Say if the current niche has not had a fair test.
- Give a direct recommendation.

RULES THAT ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE
- Every claim in the title and thumbnail must be delivered in the video. Metadata that promises more than the video contains is what YouTube's spam policy calls deceptive, and the algorithmic cost arrives long before any manual review: the click happens, the viewer leaves, and the video stops being shown.
- No fabricated numbers, statistics, dates, studies or quotes. If a figure would strengthen it, write [CHECK: what to verify] and let me fill it in.
- Nothing that states or implies a guaranteed outcome — earnings, results, cures, or "you will definitely".
- No medical, legal or financial instruction presented as advice. Information, framed as information.
- Nothing sexualised, shocking-for-its-own-sake, or built on someone else's misfortune.
- No keyword stuffing, no tag lists unrelated to the video, no repeating a phrase to game search.

GIVE ME
WHICH QUESTION — results or sustainability.
FAIR TEST — met or not.
OUTLIERS — what they point to.
THE COST.
OPTIONS — by cost.
RECOMMENDATION.
IF STAYING — what changes.

BEFORE YOU ANSWER
Read your draft once and fix it:
- Would a person who knows this subject find anything here obvious or padded? Cut it.
- Is every specific claim something the video can actually deliver?
- Did any banned phrase survive? Replace it.
- Are the sentences varied in length, or do they all run the same? Fix the rhythm.
Then give me the final version only. No preamble, no explanation of what you did.